Nonetheless, Ridge was Bush's front runner, and in 1996, Governor Ridge joined other several pro-abortion republican Governors in calling for removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican National Platform. The pro-life plank, in its current form, should be replaced with one which can appeal to the 90+% of the population which neither accepts the extreme "pro-choice" nor extreme "pro-life" positions.
I've written out a few times what I think the platform should be, but here are the basics:
- The abortion of viable late-term unborn children is morally reprehensible, and should be forbidden except as defined in (2).
- If a condition arises in pregnancy where the woman requires medical treatment to prevent a severe likelihood of death, sterility, loss of limb, blindness, or other severe bodily harm substantially beyond that associated with normal pregnancy, the woman shall be allowed to receive such treatment even if it means the probable or certain death of her unborn child. A woman may decide to accept the health risks of foregoing or delaying such treatment in the hopes of delivering a live child, but she shall not be required to put the life of the baby ahead of her own.
- At present, most Americans do not believe an unimplanted embryo and a near-term fetus are morally equivalent, and would oppose providing the former with all the protections of the latter.
- For the Republicans to impose any restrictions on abortion or implantation prevention would be not only politically suicidal but also pointless, since any such restrictions would be undone shortly after the next election cycle.
- The government should restrict abortions in those cases where there is a broad public concensus favoring such restriction, but should hold off on imposing other restrictions unless or until a public concensus forms for restricting them as well.
Right now, many people who could be characterized as generally pro-life feel themselves compelled to vote Democrat out of a belief that if Republicans really get control they'll outlaw nearly all forms of birth control except the "rhythm" method, as well as many types of fertility treatments. Now we here at FR know there's no way the Republicans would do such things, but Democrats have convince people that they--the brave and valiant Democrats--are the only thing stopping the Republicans from sending women back to the Dark Ages.
My point with the proposed platform up above is to pre-empt and counteract such lies and fears, while setting themselves up to "ratchet up" protections for the unborn. After all, if a fetus is considered a baby after 36 weeks, it becomes harder to dehumanize a 35-week fetus. Amd so public opinions will shift to allow protection of 32-week fetuses. And from there, 28, and so on.
I know there are some who think the party platform should hold the absolute rock-solid pro-life view. I would agree that's a noble ideal, but to me it runs contrary to the purpose of the party platform.
To be, the purpose of the party platform is to have a group of statements that party members can stand fully behind without equivocation. Any and all party members who stand fully behind the platform will defend each other as they defend it. It is thus important that the platform have broad, unequivocal support.
The present platform, frankly, doesn't.
Abortion is wrong. And our society was a lot more sane and kind and moral before it was legal.
The radical feminist left pushed abortion into legality by using big lies about the number of women who died through illegal abortions. In short, they hoodwinked us.
Very well-reasoned reply. I applaud you for keeping your eyes on the ultimate goals of ending abortion, but doing so in a sensible manner that removes the incentive for many to vote Democrat.